Can I sue my council

[hunton69]

10 Pence Short said:

Were certificates of lawful development issued, or letters issued by the planning department that specifically said no enforcement action would ever be taken?

No And No

[10 Pence Short]

hunton69 said:

No And No

In which case, on what basis do you think their decision to bring enforcement action is unlawful?

Put it another way, if you were a neighbour of yours wanting enforcement action, how do you think the council could defend themselves in a judicial review questioning their decision not to begin enforcement action?

[hunton69]

10 Pence Short said:

In which case, on what basis do you think their decision to bring enforcement action is unlawful?

Put it another way, if you were a neighbour of yours wanting enforcement action, how do you think the council could defend themselves in a judicial review questioning their decision not to begin enforcement action?

I never said that the enforcement action in 2011 was un lawfull

I have said that they should of served an enforcment notice to the previous owner in 2007.

The evidence that they had then was no different to what they had in 2011

I'm saying that had they investigated properly they would of come to the same conclusion as they did in 2011

[10 Pence Short]

Forgive me for saying so, but you appear to be arguing that their failure to order the buildings' demolition in 2007 was wrong, and that their decision to do so in 2011 was right.

But you want to sue them for making a correct decision?

The person(s) you should sue are the ones whose professional advice you took before purchase which said the buildings were legal developments. But I then suspect you would be suing yourself.

[hunton69]

10 Pence Short said:

Forgive me for saying so, but you appear to be arguing that their failure to order the buildings' demolition in 2007 was wrong, and that their decision to do so in 2011 was right.

But you want to sue them for making a correct decision?

.

Agreed

I want to sue them for there failure in 2007.

So why was there a different result 4 years later?

They had all the evidence in 2007


The question I asked was can I sue the council the answers here appear to me that I can't

Edited by hunton69 on Monday 17th February 21:10

[Steve H]

hunton69 said:

10 Pence Short said:

Were certificates of lawful development issued, or letters issued by the planning department that specifically said no enforcement action would ever be taken?

No And No

OP, you're really not helping!

The answer to those questions are no, and yes but not by letter.


I assume we can agree that something doesn't have to be eligible for a certificate of lawful development to avoid enforcement action? It's normal practice for a council to conclude that a building may breach planning regulations in some form but may decide that the situation does not justify enforcement action. Without this, every breach, no matter how minor or unimportant would become an automatic enforcement action and the system would be unable to keep up with itself.

In circumstances such as these, and when the council have officially closed the case with a decision that no further action will be taken, would it be acceptable for them to then look again and draw a different conclusion?

That's what happened here, they keep a public record of applications, appeals and enforcements, all publicly accessible online, this is copied/pasted from the decision made on Jan 4th 2007 -


Status: Case Closed
Type: Complaint
Decision: No Further Action
Decision Reason: Justification from Officer
Close Reason: Case Closed
Parish: Abbots Langley Parish Council
Ward: Bedmond And Primrose Hill
Case Officer: Mr Richard Stevens
Nature of Complaint: Unauthorised works

We would need to know that this case did concern all the buildings in question, but if it did then how can they later reverse that decision?

[bltamil1]

Steve H said:

OP, you're really not helping!

The answer to those questions are no, and yes but not by letter.


I assume we can agree that something doesn't have to be eligible for a certificate of lawful development to avoid enforcement action? It's normal practice for a council to conclude that a building may breach planning regulations in some form but may decide that the situation does not justify enforcement action. Without this, every breach, no matter how minor or unimportant would become an automatic enforcement action and the system would be unable to keep up with itself.

In circumstances such as these, and when the council have officially closed the case with a decision that no further action will be taken, would it be acceptable for them to then look again and draw a different conclusion?

That's what happened here, they keep a public record of applications, appeals and enforcements, all publicly accessible online, this is copied/pasted from the decision made on Jan 4th 2007 -


Status: Case Closed
Type: Complaint
Decision: No Further Action
Decision Reason: Justification from Officer
Close Reason: Case Closed
Parish: Abbots Langley Parish Council
Ward: Bedmond And Primrose Hill
Case Officer: Mr Richard Stevens
Nature of Complaint: Unauthorised works

We would need to know that this case did concern all the buildings in question, but if it did then how can they later reverse that decision?

Ok, I'll bite one more time, and that's it!

The notes on the website regarding the particular 2007 complaint, and the "no further action" do not constitute a decision within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act. IT simply means no further action at this time. It's possible that the Council concluded that the buildings were illegal, but did not see fit to order any enforcement action.

The 2009 complaint may have been different in nature or in magnitude (or both) which caused them to revisit the situation. On that occasion, they obviously came to the conclusion that further action was required, and hence started the enforcement action.

This does all seem very odd, and I must admit to a more than passing interest in how this all came about. However, it's not going to help the OP in any action he may bring which in my opinion will not be successful.

Apologies if I got some of the dates and facts wrong earlier, I'm struggling to see the basic facts on this one!

Best of luck in your case OP.

[hunton69]

Steve H said:

OP, you're really not helping!

The answer to those questions are no, and yes but not by letter.


That's what happened here, they keep a public record of applications, appeals and enforcements, all publicly accessible online, this is copied/pasted from the decision made on Jan 4th 2007 -


Status: Case Closed
Type: Complaint
Decision: No Further Action
Decision Reason: Justification from Officer
Close Reason: Case Closed
Parish: Abbots Langley Parish Council
Ward: Bedmond And Primrose Hill
Case Officer: Mr Richard Stevens
Nature of Complaint: Unauthorised works

We would need to know that this case did concern all the buildings in question, but if it did then how can they later reverse that decision?

I am trying to look at both sides

What that says is no further action. I guuess that means on this case.

As they have reopened the case then they have the power to do that.
The next case has the same result No further action
Then in 2009 they open a third case which is immediatly closed but then re open the fourth

[hunton69]

bltamil1 said:

Ok, I'll bite one more time, and that's it!

The 2009 complaint may have been different in nature or in magnitude (or both) which caused them to revisit the situation. On that occasion, they obviously came to the conclusion that further action was required, and hence started the enforcement action.

This does all seem very odd, and I must admit to a more than passing interest in how this all came about. However, it's not going to help the OP in any action he may bring which in my opinion will not be successful.

Apologies if I got some of the dates and facts wrong earlier, I'm struggling to see the basic facts on this one!

Best of luck in your case OP.

As I have said the size and magnitude did not change in 2007 they were all there.
In our appeal the council submitted pictures of the building works as they progressed and there is a lot of photos.
They are not taken by building control but by planning.


Thanks for your comments. I will bash the lawers with your thoughts.
My maths is far better than my English so I won't be wasting money on a dead duck

[hunton69]

Here are some photos of the old coming down and the new going up.

Check out the ridge bean on the old pool

[hunton69]

And how close the new build is to the old one.

Not sure what they really achieved

[hunton69]

Also I would of settled on the old pool 180 sq meters and a gym approx 70 sq meters but my new build is 340 sq meters. Did that to p-ss them of

[hunton69]

This is on the council web site

Enforcement action is discretionary
This is an important aspect of planning enforcement – if something is a breach of planning control this is not, in itself, a reason to take enforcement action. Even when it is technically possible to take action the Council is required by Central Government policies and legislation to first decide if such formal action would be “expedient”. Expediency is a test of whether the unauthorised development/activities are causing harm having regard to the Development Plan policies and other material planning considerations. This means that formal enforcement action is discretionary and all the relevant planning circumstances of each case must first be considered.

When investigating alleged breaches a detailed site visit will be undertaken and the planning history studied.

Expedient

Correct me if I'm wrong but what was the point in issuing me with a notice to demolish all of the buildings when I could apply for a certificate of lawfullness on a new build. That I did and actually made it larger than what I would of settled on if we could of sat down and negotiated.
As I have already said I never wanted them all.


Also this section on the web site
Types of Permitted Development
Household extensions and alterations – e.g. small single storey rear extensions, some side extensions, porches, loft conversions and small outbuildings (depending on scale and location)

I Have been told that you should never p_ss of a planning officer that I did.

I believe they failed in the basic duty and should of been dilligent in the work 2007 and it then became personal in 2011

Lets face it I've done the same to some of you guys on this thread

[Steve H]

bltamil1 said:

Ok, I'll bite one more time, and that's it!

The notes on the website regarding the particular 2007 complaint, and the "no further action" do not constitute a decision within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act. IT simply means no further action at this time. It's possible that the Council concluded that the buildings were illegal, but did not see fit to order any enforcement action.

The 2009 complaint may have been different in nature or in magnitude (or both) which caused them to revisit the situation. On that occasion, they obviously came to the conclusion that further action was required, and hence started the enforcement action.

This is the main point for me, if the circumstances and facts have not changed wouldn't it be a reasonable expectation that they would be obliged to come to the same conclusion?

I'd have thought that a borough planning info website would be a fairly normal way of publishing results of an investigation and that people would expect to rely on this; if the T&CPA covers enforcement issues then what else should they have done to constitute a decision?

bltamil1 said:

This does all seem very odd, and I must admit to a more than passing interest in how this all came about. However, it's not going to help the OP in any action he may bring which in my opinion will not be successful.

From my experience of dealing with council planning departments I suspect it happened simply because nobody pulled them up on it strongly enough at the time; the "this is how we do it" attitude in some departments is quite incredible.

My first thought was that it would be a good grounds for reversal of the decision but that time has passed now and I understand that issue was not argued at appeal, I agree that getting compensation would be a lot harder.

[TooMany2cvs]

And it's still going on... But I don't think the legals went the way the OP wanted...

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[bltamil1]

TooMany2cvs said:

And it's still going on... But I don't think the legals went the way the OP wanted...

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Yes, I just saw that. I'm not sure I understand the latest thread any more than this one!

[robinessex]

Reading this, and the other posting, plus my own dealings with planning, is that it's the biggest load of bks ever invented. My solicitors stock phrase was 'if you want to be next to god, be a planning officer' Logic, commonsense and sensible rules don't come into it. And what they decided last week. Mind you, if you take the time to read the 'rules' you can often run rings around them. You have to do it in a way that they don't realise it until it's to late.

[hunton69]

TooMany2cvs said:

And it's still going on... But I don't think the legals went the way the OP wanted...

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

I took advice on here regarding the legals. I am looking at other options but need to get hold of all previous correspondence

Not sure if you guys can advise the enforcement says I have to restore the land to the original level. the court summons said restore the land to original condition. How can a summons be different to the order

[Steffan]

hunton69 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

And it's still going on... But I don't think the legals went the way the OP wanted...

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

I took advice on here regarding the legals. I am looking at other options but need to get hold of all previous correspondence

Not sure if you guys can advise the enforcement says I have to restore the land to the original level. the court summons said restore the land to original condition. How can a summons be different to the order

Poor drafting I presume. I would hope the planners will interpret this reasonably.

[hunton69]

Steffan said:

Poor drafting I presume. I would hope the planners will interpret this reasonably.

Lol

These planners have told me that where the buildings used to stand I cannot turf those areas I have to seed them. Work that out.